Developing story: Is Obama and the Marxist Dems preparing to ignore the High Court should it vote against ObamaCare

Point of post: another glaring example why this Review refuses to use Politico as an established news source. It is nothing but a radicalized rag,  perfectly willing to alter or change the facts in order to accomplish its goals.

On March 28,  I reported that a Democrat Senator threatened to ignore the Supreme Courts decision if it went against ObamaCare.

Today,  Obama issued the same threat,  labeling the High Court a "group of unelected officials" rather than recognizing them as the law of the land.  Politico reported this story, but I will not quote from their report.  The reason?  I listened to Obama make his statement and key elements of his comment were omitted from the Politico report,  such as his characterization of the High Court as a group of "unelected officials."

As things stand at this very moment,  there is no reason to believe that Obama will obey the High Court's decision,  should it work against his commie agenda.  But that is not the final word. . . . . . . so we say this

story line developing !!

Like I stated above, "unelected group of people"  was his choice of words. Here it is in one report.  

The president, adopting what he described as the language of conservatives who fret about judicial activism, questioned how an “unelected group of people” could overturn a law approved by Congress.  LINK 

But . . . . .  it is nowhere mentioned in the Politico report. Here is that report in its entirety - and, indeed,  this Marxist reporting rag leaves out the very controversial characterization:



Obama: Supreme Court won’t overturn health care law

President Barack Obama voiced confidence Monday that the Supreme Court will uphold his health care law in his first public remarks on the issue since the three days of oral arguments last week.

In a rare instance of a president weighing in on a high court case in which the ruling has not yet been released, Obama suggested that the high court would be guilty of “judicial activism” if it overturned the law. He also argued that the justices should uphold the individual mandate, saying it’s a key — and constitutional — piece of the law.

“We are confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld,” Obama said at a joint news conference at the White House with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon.

During three days of hearings last week, conservative justices signaled skepticism toward the individual mandate, which requires nearly all Americans to buy health insurance or pay a fine. Based on their questions, the conservative justices did not appear to support the idea of upholding the law if they were to strike down the mandate.

Obama said the individual mandate must remain in the law for it to function.

“I think it is important and I think the American people understand, and I think the justices should understand that in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to insure that people with preexisting conditions can actually get health care,” he said.

Some liberal groups are preparing to attack the court for judicial activism should the mandate be overturned, and Obama laid the groundwork for that argument on Monday, as he reminded conservatives of their fears of overreaching courts.

Overturning the law would be “an unprecedented, extraordinary step” since it was passed by a majority of members in the House and Senate,” he said. “I just remind conservative commentators that for years we’ve heard that the biggest problem is judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint. That a [here, Politico leaves out 'an unelected]  group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/74743.html


Reuters gives us the true quote in their story:

"And I'd just remind conservative commentators that, for years, what we have heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law,"